If labour win the election can they introduce VAT immediately?

[londonparent321]

(For school fees) Or do they need to go through the courts which could take years /never happen?

Do you mean part funding on top of the land/buildings and 10% capital costs or is that what you're counting as part funding?

Only 10% of building costs.

The actual cost of the education is funded by the taxpayer - including all those the school actively discriminates against.

The church owns the land and buildings. Some part rent out land or have sold land ( ie school fields ) to local councils over the years starting in the 70s. But most are still retained in full by the RC church.
Then the church pay 10% towards all running costs. That’s overall costs. Some of that obv pays for maintenance of buildings they own but some also goes towards everything else. Some also employ a priest ( full or part time) paid for fully by the church.

That’s why I think it’s fare they get a say in student places.
If , like some faith schools, they were fully funded and owned ( bldgs and land etc ) by the Govn then no I don’t think they should dictate the faith of their students.

This isn't quite right.

For most faith schools, the land and buildings are owned by the church (or equivalent - I'll stick to church in this post, but some faith schools are for non-Christian faiths). For VA schools, the church pays 10% of all capital costs. The church is not required to pay anything towards running costs. However, in many cases the church does top up the funding provided by the state.

The funding situation is a little different for VC schools, but the admission criteria for VC schools are set by the LA and are less likely to include priority for children of the faith.

I do the quinquennials for a lot of RC churches and most are linked to schools so I suppose I have a hand in ( so to speak ) where all the finances go as our budget is set after such things as the schools are funded.
They all pay a min of 10%, some more. That’s not just for buildings but for everything.

As I do the quinquennials I meet others that do other churches in other areas and I’ve never been in a meeting that has reported otherwise.

Other faiths I have no idea.

I'm not surprised. VA schools (which includes all RC schools) are not required to pay anything towards running costs but most do.

why is it different? I ask in genuine bafflement. Why is it okay to spend extra on a home in a good catchment or pay for tutoring to get into grammars - both examples of using money to buy access to better educational provision- but not acceptable to pay fees?

@Labraradabrador Because going to a slightly better state school does not somehow magically improve your chances of a top job compared to people from other schools who are as good or better than you.

(Plus the argument often seen on here - there will always be inequality so there's no point trying to do anything about it - is a poor one imo.)

There is however the choice not to do it - preschool/nurseries and universities do not cover the CSA years

True - but society needs parents to work and people to get degrees. It doesn't need people to be educated privately, there's no wider benefit. Many people are already priced out of accessing nursery and HE. There's a limit to how expensive you can make it while still having enough working parents and graduates in the workforce.

Because going to a slightly better state school does not somehow magically improve your chances of a top job

There are big differences in outcomes depending on which state school a parent chooses. From a Department for Education report.

“our results show non-trivial gains for some groups in some places: some LAs might find average gains of between 10% and 20% of a pupil-level standard deviation of GCSE points score, if students chose to attend a higher-performing school. Gains appear to be slightly higher in primary schools, with gains in some LAs being 30-40% of a standard deviation. Since these gains are predominantly for FSM-eligible students, they also serve to narrow the attainment gap. The mean gain for FSM-eligible students is around 2 GCSE grades per student, and the mean gain for non-FSM students is 1.6 grades.”

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7c1bebed915d1c30daa9e1/RR310_-_School_performance_and_parental_choice_of_school.pdf

Why are so many people happy with the inequality across the state sector? That inequality affects 93% of our children. Most parents are well aware of these inequalities. It’s precisely why so many parents will do anything to get their children into the higher performing state schools. If the state system was really a level playing field, why are so many parents bothered about which school they are allocated?

@Hughs private school also does not magically provide entry to top jobs - what a comical understanding you have of how the world works!

graduates I know from private education include a few high fliers, but those are a minority - among my network the majority are in good but not necessarily powerful or ultra profitable positions such as local farmers, trades (the guy who painted my lounge went to my children’s school), loads of teachers, small business owners, artists, musicians, etc. there are also a couple utterly feckless individuals who aren’t up to much at all. Private school hasn’t magically transformed them into power brokers - it has just given them a really solid education and hopefully made it a bit easier for them to figure out their own individual paths in life.

you are maybe thinking of places like Eton, which are over represented in politics historically (though I suspect that is unlikely to continue in new generations). Those people come from wealth, and more importantly have family connections that translate into real career advantage. Some of this is maybe reinforced in school when people in the same social network send their kids to the same place, but would exist even if these schools were abolished - the wealthy would just fine other avenues to network. The vast majority of private schools do not look like Eton.

Anyway, you seem determined in your blinkered view of the world and completely unwilling to examine some really naive and logically flawed assumptions.

Thanks @Another76543 - I would have guessed this to be the reality, but helpful to have actual data.

You think you've thought of this but the tax and finance experts working for the Labour Party haven't, so they'll 'fall flat on their faces'?
Seems unlikely. I imagine it's been thoroughly worked through. Because they haven't shared all the details doesn't mean they haven't thought of them.

I'm not talking about improved exam scores, as you can see from "compared to people from other schools who are as good or better than you" in my earlier post.

Instead of "graduates I know" you could look at some data - around 75% of the brightest and highest-achieving schoolchildren (by A level results) come from the state sector. But when you look at who gets top jobs, the privately educated are way overrepresented - so for example (from the Sutton Trust report in 2019), MPs (not too bad at 29% privately educated), HoL (57%), cabinet members (39%), ST Rich List (57%), newspaper columnists (44%), influential media figures (43%), civil service permanent secretaries (59%), diplomats (52%), public body chairs (45%), senior judges (65%). So this is not just about ability. That's an awful lot of talented people getting overlooked, which doesn't do any of us any good.

Ha no

I agree - I don't send mine private to obtain an academic advantage.

I come from a v WC background, went to a state primary in a v deprived area, followed, fortunately, by state grammar school. I now work in a good job earning a v good salary.

So when my eldest started school I sent her to a state primary. However, she was repeatedly sent home because she was so anxious that she was making herself sick and then she wouldn't be allowed back in for 48hrs. She was missing so much schooling and whenever I asked what she was missing I was told it wasn't my concern and they would make sure she didn't miss out. She never had sound cards or books sent home because I was told she was up to the requisite standard (albeit she's not particularly academic). I couldn't believe that they wouldn't want to utilise an engaged parent and would prefer to block them out.

So we made the decision to move her to a private school, because I'm earning well so why on earth would I leave her in that situation when I had an alternative. Since moving her she hasn't made herself sick once and she's thriving (not just in an academic way but in her confidence and happiness). I repeatedly flagged her anxiety to her first school, and they refused to acknowledge it but within 2 weeks of moving to the private school they rang me to discuss what they'd observed and implement a plan.

It's absolutely awful that there will be children who don't have this opportunity but, for me personally, why do I work so hard if I can't do something like this to help them. The reality is, if we don't send them to a private secondary, we will just move into the catchment of the excellent grammar - but again, not because of the academic results, but because of the whole environment. And yes, I've heard parents discussing buying a second home near that school and moving in for 6 months just to get a place - so it's foolish to think that MC parents these days won't do whatever it takes.

The gap between top state and private is smaller than top and bottom state

Labour want a rousing policy though not actual change or funding benefit

Yes I do actually.

This is dog whistle politics. They’ve already had to U turn on charity status, 28 billion for green agenda etc. This will be quietly dropped down the line too - but for now Labour will use it to get all those nice votes from those who run to the ballot box salivating at the “politics of envy” message like Pavlov’s dogs.

I agree

I very much hope it’s dropped as the others have been

It’s a terrible policy and is there for reasons you say

Oh dear. You might want to study up on the difference between causation and correlation.

@Labraradabrador
I mean it's the conclusion of the report that it's more than just correlation. I'm sure the academics who wrote it would appreciate your opinion and advice, but how would you explain the discrepancy if not causation?

It would be better if other factors were taken into account. The report only takes into account education, not family background.

It’s like the old analogy about how a table and a dog have 4 legs, but that doesn’t make a dog a table.

Those with significant generational wealth send their kids to private schools. Those with significant generational wealth dominate in government and in top industry positions. This does not mean that the private school was the main factor.

The factors that made the difference to get the top jobs were more likely to be significant financial safety net, family connections, expectations (if aunt Susan is already British ambassador to Mongolia you are more likely to consider it as a viable career choice).

But this does not mean that the daughter of a successful local plumber suddenly has the same factors apply just because she went to the local independent school.

Significant generational wealth is the biggest factor in that kind of “success”- and by that I mean “an ancestor who came over with William the Conqueror”, not a £50k inheritance from great-granny Agnes.

Of course, the VAT application will price out the plumbers daughter, but not the diplomat’s niece, so actually compounds the problem rather than fixing it.

@Hughs the report doesn’t really make the point (or substantiate it) in they way you think it does. It discusses an ‘old boys network’ of the top 9 public schools (not representative of indies more broadly) but isn’t able to disentangle the role of the school vs. Pre-existing social/familial network. If you were to eliminate those 9 schools tomorrow, it likely wouldn’t make any difference to the outcome of those students (except those receiving bursaries) because those wealthy well connected families would just find other ways to network.

the report’s main conclusion is that the socioeconomic status at birth is the dominant and intractable factor, and that the poorest benefit disproportionately from high quality education. Wealthy people land on their feet regardless of where they are educated, though. One of the recommendations is actually to broaden access to private school for socioeconomically disadvantaged students.

Anyone who bangs on about ‘the politics of envy’ isn’t worth discussing with. It’s a phrase that shows they are too set in their own world to consider anything else so parrot right wing nonsense instead.

Actually what is compounding the problem is harping on about 'politics of envy', it's kind of like an own goal in that respect; if you want the wider population to leave your second rate (by all accounts on here) private schools alone then try to look at the bigger picture, engage your brain and question why a large proportion of the population are dissatisfied with the economic models that distribute wealth so unevenly. If you are selfish in your thought processes you naturally assume everyone is the same, hence the 'politics of envy' conclusions whereas a lot of people are seeing their standard of living deteriorate, know that their children's will be even worse despite doing all the things you are supposed to do to improve your lot (methods that worked in the past) they know but can't articulate that something is fundamentally not working in the economy that distributes wealth the way it does, they want this inequality corrected and policies like this appear to be some way towards that. It doesn't really matter whether ultimately the Labour party is going to do enough to correct the wealth inequality, it matters that they are doing something.

Absolutely!